Here's another "why we carry"...

This is a discussion on Here's another "why we carry"... within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Much to my surprise, I didn't see anything posted here about this.
Link deleted....
I didn't post the story because I wasn't sure about copyright ...

From what I have read in the above I would hope that this is a "clean" shooting. The person that shot the perp/POS "followed" them ?? He fired when the perp/POS started to point his gun at the shooter?? I'm sure that he felt that he could be saving the life of the vic or his own. From what little info that I have, it seems to me that this will be one of those close ones. The shooter will have to pay thousands in lawyers fees and under go the rest of the torment that comes from the perps family and friends. "He was such a sweet boy. He loved his grandmother.He could never have done the things that he was so unjustly accused of. He loved puppies when he was a little boy. Society made him do it. ETC., ETC." Hope that this turns out allright for the person that saved the taxpayers all that money! ----------

You know RSSZ, those are some of my thoughts exactly. I was very concerned about the "followed" part.

Someone posted the following GA law:

"16-3-21 (annotated)Use of force in defense of self or others, including justifiable homicide; conflicting rules

(a)A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(b)A person is not justified in using force under the circumestance specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:
(1)Initally provokes the use of force against himself witht he intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(2)Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(3)Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

(c)"This is a paraphrase for brevity sake"-Any law or regulation by any lesser authority in this State that restricts the aforementioned subsections of this Code shal be null and void when in conflict with this statute.
{The rest of this subsection only provides a means to defend oneself against a prosecution for use of deadly force.

GA Annotated 16-3-23 Use of force in defense of habitation

GA Annotated 16-3-24 Use of force in defense of property.

Still I can't help but wonder about the "followed" him part. The positive thing here is the GG didn't shoot until the BG turned his gun on him (the GG). Hopefully this will turn out to be a clean, justified shooting.

And they wonder why we 'banish' them...

So this BG was a CONVICTED rapist and murder, obviously rehabilitated. In my local paper this week there was an article where the registered sex offenders were complaining because they had paid their debt to society and felt unfairly 'banished' and scorned by the citizenry. They blamed the registration laws. One women complained that because here husband had been convicted in NJ of a sexual assault on a nephew (he served 2.5 years and they have moved to Florida) that the other kids would not play with her son (2 children in the house) and the husband could not get a job. Why would you stay married to a convicted sex offender? Of course the perp said he had made a 'terrible mistake' and it would never happen again. The paper had a picture of him playing chess with another nephew. Are these people insane?
Anyway, here is the link as long as the story remains available..

Personal experience tells me that these offenders can never be rehab'd. What's worse is that their actions can lead their victims to the same actions if corrective measures aren't taken. It's a vicious cycle and I wouldn't have any problems with creating a modern day Australia and sending them all to it.

Following a kidnap victim in order to report and keep the police informed is perfectly legal. It doesn't become suddenly illegal just because you have a CCW.

Agreed, but in this case as I understand it, the kidnapped victim was killed from the crash with the cement truck and the BG was leaving the scene alone and the GG, referred to in some accounts as a Good Samaritan, was following him.

I'm hoping the following won't/can't be interpreted as an act of aggression - that would be bad.

Personal experience tells me that these offenders can never be rehab'd. What's worse is that their actions can lead their victims to the same actions if corrective measures aren't taken. It's a vicious cycle and I wouldn't have any problems with creating a modern day Australia and sending them all to it.

I went back an re-read the article to be sure (assuming the reporter got it right) the CCW holder followed the vehicle after witnessing the victim and attacker struggling in the car. After the crash the BG exited the car and while leaving the scene pointed his weapon at the CCW holder, who then shot him.

Originally Posted by Tangle

Agreed, but in this case as I understand it, the kidnapped victim was killed from the crash with the cement truck and the BG was leaving the scene alone and the GG, referred to in some accounts as a Good Samaritan, was following him.

I'm hoping the following won't/can't be interpreted as an act of aggression - that would be bad.

I went back an re-read the article to be sure (assuming the reporter got it right) the CCW holder followed the vehicle after witnessing the victim and attacker struggling in the car. After the crash the BG exited the car and while leaving the scene pointed his weapon at the CCW holder, who then shot him.

One account gave the impression the BG was on foot, headed away from the accident, as if trying to escape, and that's when the shooting took place.

Here's the other version:"Pierce said the suspect exited the SUV and was running toward a nearby gas station when he was shot and killed in the middle of the roadway by a man who had gotten out of a southbound Dodge pickup truck.

In any rational society, shooting an armed, fleeing kidnapper/murderer who was heading towards a gas station to possibly commit another felony crime would be rewarded with public praise, rather than being prosecuted and sued.

If the BG did point his gun at a CCW holder, whether the CCW holder was following him or not, would eliminate any criminal charges against the CCW holder.

Intervention in its own is extremely risky. Most approach this particular incident as if the GG knew that this was a kidnapper/rapist/murderer, etc. and deserved to die, so he shot him. But that's not why he shot him and it is not justification to shoot someone. He shot him because the BG pointed a gun at him. That's justification.

We have to be careful not to confuse defending with avenging. We generally cannot shoot someone for what they have done or what we think they may do.

It appears to me that the GG should be ok because the BG pointed a gun at him.

Everybody else with a gun is insane. Rehab a serial rapist? Oh, yeah, just a product of society, poor SOB. What about the vicious, stalking, gun nut that offed him? He probably got the permit so he could try it out. I take comfort in being a victim, the rapist is a victim, and as soon as we can get the power, I can make victims of you all, so you can feel my pain, and I won't feel so alone.